Hornbuckle v. Adecco USA, Inc.

Full title: SUSAN L. HORNBUCKLE, Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC. Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division

Date published: Oct 5, 2009

Case No: 1:07-CV-110 TC (D. Utah Oct. 5, 2009)

Opinion

Case No: 1:07-CV-110 TC.

October 5, 2009

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL

DAVID NUFFER, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Susan Hornbuckle has filed a motion requesting that Defendant Adecco USA, Inc., be compelled to produce a company representative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to provide deposition testimony about certain topics.¹ Adecco has filed an opposition.² The factual background for Hornbuckle's motion is set forth more fully in the parties' memoranda.³

1 Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Order and Compel Discovery, docket no. 32, filed September 21, 2009.

2 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Order and Compel Discovery (Opposition Memorandum), docket no. 38, filed October 1, 2009.

3 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Order and Compel Discovery at 1-4, docket no. 33, filed September 21, 2009; Opposition Memorandum at 1-4.

After carefully considering the parties' submissions, the court rules as follows:

The Motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Topics 1-11 are improper at this time for the reasons stated in the court's order of May 23, 2009.⁴

Topic 12 is stricken.

Topic 13 shall be treated as a contention interrogatory and shall be answered on or before October 13, 2009.

Topic 14 is stricken.

Topics 1-5 on Deposition Day 3 ("DD3") are stricken.

4 Docket no. 27.